The Problem with Third Party Candidates

[dburkhead]

"Going Galt" in the real world amounts to deliberately reducing production or moving it elsewhere. A short while ago, I saw an article about someplace on the east cost (New Jersey?) that hiked taxes on folks making "rich people money". They figured it would cover all of their budget shortfalls for the next year. Instead, they wound up in the hole by twice as much because the "rich folks" decided to move and/or find ways to earn less income.

It's not as extreme or dramatic as Atlas Shrugged, and it doesn't take a conspiracy to pull off... it happens when people seek their own best interests. I will readily agree that there are no magical force fields in our future, but the story does illustrate a truth -- people as a rule do not like being food for parasites.

Actually, moving to a more congenial location is not the same as "going Galt." Going Galt was explicitly intended as a strike to "stop the motor of the world."

If someone doesn't think that having 30,000 of disposable income (after taxes) is "worth it" over having, say "25,000" after taxes, that's their prerogative. But the deliberate attempt to bring down civilization--explicit in Atlas Shrugged and, IIRC, hastening that end is one of Hornadyl's express reasons for "going Galt"--is to what I object.

 

[Fletch]

Actually, moving to a more congenial location is not the same as "going Galt." Going Galt was explicitly intended as a strike to "stop the motor of the world."

If someone doesn't think that having 30,000 of disposable income (after taxes) is "worth it" over having, say "25,000" after taxes, that's their prerogative. But the deliberate attempt to bring down civilization--explicit in Atlas Shrugged and, IIRC, hastening that end is one of Hornadyl's express reasons for "going Galt"--is to what I object.

I understand what you're saying; I just see it as a difference in degree, not in kind.

 

[dburkhead]

I understand what you're saying; I just see it as a difference in degree, not in kind.

The thing is, I believe motive matters. If you shoot someone because you hate him and want him dead, that's murder. If you shoot someone because you are reasonably in fear for you life that's self defense.

If you are doing less work because the greater income (in terms of what you can keep) from doing more isn't worth the effort to get it, that's simple economics.

If you are doing less work for the express purpose of causing the collapse of civilization that's something entirely different.

 

[Prometheus]

The thing is, I believe motive matters. If you shoot someone because you hate him and want him dead, that's murder. If you shoot someone because you are reasonably in fear for you life that's self defense.

If you are doing less work because the greater income (in terms of what you can keep) from doing more isn't worth the effort to get it, that's simple economics.

If you are doing less work for the express purpose of causing the collapse of civilization that's something entirely different.

Atlas Shrugged isn't going to ring true to everyone. Especially when one of it's readers thinks society should expect and demand that the individual provide something for them.

Dburkhead: I've got news for you. You can't expect or demand anything out of me and I should expect or demand anything of you.

You've missed the entire point of the novel. It's not about staying in a collapsing society to make a few more shekels over leaving it.

It's about being forced AT GUN POINT to provide for someone else when you don't want to.

You obviously have no problem with that and it's rare you find someone willing to spell it out so clearly.

The next time you want to take something form someone, why don't you, personally, go and take it from them rather than sending proxies like politicians and police.

 

[dburkhead]

Atlas Shrugged isn't going to ring true to everyone. Especially when one of it's readers thinks society should expect and demand that the individual provide something for them.

Got news for you. Atlas Shrugged is an overly simplistic where the main thing that Ayn Rand demonstrates is that you can "win" any argument if you get to write both sides.

Dburkhead: I've got news for you. You can't expect or demand anything out of me and I should expect or demand anything of you.

So I can't even expect or demand that you not destroy what I am working on building?

If I can't expect or demand even that much, how then are you better than the looters that Rand decries?

If I can expect that much, then how to justify Galt since that's exactly what he did.

You've missed the entire point of the novel. It's not about staying in a collapsing society to make a few more shekels over leaving it.

Oh I got the point. I just disagreed with it because it glossed over a whole bunch of complexities of the real world that tend to disturb Rand's nice, neat little world view

It's about being forced AT GUN POINT to provide for someone else when you don't want to.

And it's about setting out deliberately to destroy what other people are building. It's about collecting a few "elite" in the nice, safe greenhouse while letting the bulk of the hard working honest people out there (or do you really believe that there are more Dagny Taggerts than there are Eddie Willers and Cheryl Brooks in the world) suffer the results of what Galt and his cronies set in motion.

It's no coincidence that Galt in his anonymous chats with Willers would find out what was most important to Dagny's success and suddenly that would be the next one to "go Galt."

As for Ragnar: when you steal from a thief, you're still stealing and you're still a thief.

You obviously have no problem with that and it's rare you find someone willing to spell it out so clearly.

You obviously have mistaken me for someone else.

The next time you want to take something form someone, why don't you, personally, go and take it from them rather than sending proxies like politicians and police.

At this point I must assume one of three things: You did not read anything I've posted here. You did not understand anything I've posted here. Or you are deliberately lying about my position.

You see, I don't justify the looters. It's just that I recognize that through his own actions Galt makes himself one of those looters.

 

[CarmelHP]

The next time you want to take something form someone, why don't you, personally, go and take it from them rather than sending proxies like politicians and police.

So, exactly what type of business concern do you work for?

 

[rambone]

I just wanted to point out that there is an organization called the Republican Liberty Caucus (RLC), who's main priority is infiltrating the Republican Party with libertarian-leaning candidates. They are legit and I know some of the local participants.

If the party can be infiltrated by socialists, it can be infiltrated again by libertarians.

Carry on....

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

With the part of this discussion talking about a Libertarian running under the R label, I would consider that dishonest - a misrepresentation. Arlan Specter comes to mind, that he lived/voted, IMO, Democrat but called himself a Republican.**

**I may have my labels screwed up - today's not a good day for me.

 

[hornadylnl]

Yep, going galt has to be an all or nothing approach. You better arrest anyone who says they won't work on Sunday because they get taxed too much. They are first class looters and thieves.

We aren't dealing with a society here that wants to take only a pittance of your income to give to the poor and downtrodden. Their end goal is to strip the producers of every thing they produce and give it to the lazy. If my business is taxed and regulated so heavily to the pint I can't afford to pay myself, you damn well better believe I will destroy that business before I become a slave so others can profit from it and I'm not allowed to. Just what do you think the insurance industry is going to do once they are forced to pay out more than they take in? Do you think they have an obligation to continue running a business at a loss so that others can prosper from it?

 

[dburkhead]

Yep, going galt has to be an all or nothing approach. You better arrest anyone who says they won't work on Sunday because they get taxed too much. They are first class looters and thieves.

Want to try dealing with what I actually said rather than straw men?

Oh, wait a minute. You object to having your logical fallacies pointed out. Well, object away. Fallacies they are and fallacies they remain.

How about trying to deal with what I actually have to say rather than making something up and attributing that to me?

In this case it's not that Galt decided "enough" and figured that the work wasn't worth the return that made him a looter. It was that he deliberately--and stated so in so many words--set out to destroy society. More than that, he went out and deliberately attacked the work of other producers. The producer whose work he sabotages that we see is Dagny Taggert's. That's the one that happens "on stage".

In the end, Dagny didn't quit because she, too, decided enough was enough. She quit because Galt had systematically destroyed everything she tried to build.

I don't have a problem with someone saying "the extra few bucks pocket change isn't worth the extra twenty hours a week it takes to earn it after taxes get through eating at it". That's an entirely reasonable economic decision. Economics 101.

I have a great deal of problem with someone saying "I'm going to stop working because that will hasten the collapse of society." That amounts to saying "I don't like how bad things are so lets make them incomparably worse for now and the considerable future."

We aren't dealing with a society here that wants to take only a pittance of your income to give to the poor and downtrodden. Their end goal is to strip the producers of every thing they produce and give it to the lazy. If my business is taxed and regulated so heavily to the pint I can't afford to pay myself, you damn well better believe I will destroy that business before I become a slave so others can profit from it and I'm not allowed to. Just what do you think the insurance industry is going to do once they are forced to pay out more than they take in? Do you think they have an obligation to continue running a business at a loss so that others can prosper from it?

What you keep missing is that I agree with every point of your characterization of the state of affairs today. Where I differ is in the tactics--and the likely results that you'll get from them. I have said repeatedly that stopping because the return isn't worth it is not a problem. It's the idea of "going Galt" as a means of hastening the collapse of society to which I object.

Although the label "going Galt" comes from Rand, the concept is an old one. The idea of "stopping the motor of the world" as a means of political change is as old as industry itself. The results have never been the increase of Liberty that you want.

 

[hornadylnl]

Again, who says that going Galt is an all or nothing approach? You are okay with me working less to pay less to the government. From my understanding of your posts, you are not okay with a business owner shutting his doors and putting his employees put of work as his means of going galt. If so, who does he work for? Himself or his employees? If I owned a business and had enough money to live on, I'd close the doors in a heartbeat if the taxes and regulations got to be too much. I'd be sure to tell my employees to thank their government. I'd even tell those who voted socialist to thank themselves.

I think what we are going to see under bamocare is doctors that are over the age of 50 are going to quit. You can figure a good amount of 50+ year old doctors have their student loans paid off and a decent nest egg for retirement. They'll just have to choose if they want to be slaves or find a new line of work.

 

[dburkhead]

Again, who says that going Galt is an all or nothing approach? You are okay with me working less to pay less to the government. From my understanding of your posts, you are not okay with a business owner shutting his doors and putting his employees put of work as his means of going galt. If so, who does he work for? Himself or his employees? If I owned a business and had enough money to live on, I'd close the doors in a heartbeat if the taxes and regulations got to be too much. I'd be sure to tell my employees to thank their government. I'd even tell those who voted socialist to thank themselves.

How many times do I have to spell it out for you before you stop attributing things other than my position to me.

It's not the actions per se to which I object. It's the claimed _objective_. And it is that objective that makes the difference between "retirement", "partial retirement," "slowing down to enjoy more time with one's family," etc. on the one hand and "going Galt" on the other.

It is that objective, the idea of deliberately "stopping the motor of the world" or of "hastening the collapse of society" to which I object. Society may collapse despite the best efforts of the "good guys" but setting out to encourage it?

I think what we are going to see under bamocare is doctors that are over the age of 50 are going to quit. You can figure a good amount of 50+ year old doctors have their student loans paid off and a decent nest egg for retirement. They'll just have to choose if they want to be slaves or find a new line of work.

Again, quitting because it's not worth it is one thing. Quitting to bring about the collapse of society or to hasten it, is quite another. It's not the quitting that's the problem. It's the deliberate attempt to make things worse that's the problem.

 

[hornadylnl]

How many times do I have to spell it out for you before you stop attributing things other than my position to me.

It's not the actions per se to which I object. It's the claimed _objective_. And it is that objective that makes the difference between "retirement", "partial retirement," "slowing down to enjoy more time with one's family," etc. on the one hand and "going Galt" on the other.

It is that objective, the idea of deliberately "stopping the motor of the world" or of "hastening the collapse of society" to which I object. Society may collapse despite the best efforts of the "good guys" but setting out to encourage it?



Again, quitting because it's not worth it is one thing. Quitting to bring about the collapse of society or to hasten it, is quite another. It's not the quitting that's the problem. It's the deliberate attempt to make things worse that's the problem.

What difference does it make? Quitting is quitting. When someone retires and signs up for social security, we'll have to interrogate them to find out what their motive is. In the real world application (not a book), people will walk away. Will their movitve be to bring the collapse of society? Maybe a really small percentage but most will do it out of their own self interest. Doesn't matter what their motive is, the end result will be the same. I'm not advocating a deliberate attempt to bring it about. I'm advocating people work in their own self interest and not subject themselves to slavery.

Don't worry, we'll have Directive 10-289 soon enough. Obama's Directive 10-289 - Right Wing News (Conservative News and Views)

 

[dburkhead]

What difference does it make? Quitting is quitting. When someone retires and signs up for social security, we'll have to interrogate them to find out what their motive is. In the real world application (not a book), people will walk away. Will their movitve be to bring the collapse of society? Maybe a really small percentage but most will do it out of their own self interest. Doesn't matter what their motive is, the end result will be the same. I'm not advocating a deliberate attempt to bring it about. I'm advocating people work in their own self interest and not subject themselves to slavery.

What difference does it make? It's the difference between "I hated him and I wanted him dead" and "I was in fear for my life." It's the difference between self defense and murder.

And you have said you were advocating "going Galt" for the purpose of "hastening the collapse." It is that, and that alone, to which I was objecting.

I have said repeatedly that I do not object to quitting. It's the attempt to hasten/cause the collapse of civilization that bothers me. It's the idea that such a collapse is something to be desired that I find incredibly misguided at best.

Yet, strangely enough I say from the very beginning that I'd like to see more libertarian folk in office. I'd like to see government rolled way back. That while there are some things government does that are beyond the Constitution that I think are proper (in this day and age) for the Federal government to do that go beyond the Constitution that the way to address them is not to just assume the power but to Amend the Constitution (that's what Amendments are for for crying out loud.

That basically, I agree with all but the most extreme Libertarian Anarchists on basic political philosophy and that my objection is only about the tactics I think most likely to achieve those ends (and tactics that I believe are really counterproductive to those ends),

Yet I get accused of everything shy of being the next incarnation of Pol Pot. And these misrepresentations continue despite repeated corrections about what I actually believe.

I have to wonder what kind of nerve I hit to get people to so thoroughly misrepresent my positions?

Don't worry, we'll have Directive 10-289 soon enough. Obama's Directive 10-289 - Right Wing News (Conservative News and Views)

Let's see your cite quotes from a work of fiction makes a historic reference that, while accurate perhaps is really not relevant to the supposed point at hand, and we're supposed to believe that this "proves" that Directive 10-289 is imminent?

Well, maybe it is. I wouldn't put it past Obama. Nevertheless, that cite is no more valid in supporting such a belief than citing the unsupported claims of folk over at the Huffington Post or the Democratic Underground about folk on the Right.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

Oohhh! We're a book club now!

I'm with Fletch. Moving away from the parasites to produce in a less cash-sucking locale follows the essence of going Galt, to a much less extreme degree. Does it follow the script? No.

Now, what did that have to do with compromised Republicans insisting that I vote for their guy because THEY think he's the lesser of the two popular evils?

<--- Paco Shrugged...

 

[Truckerman79]

5 star thread, would read again.

 

[Lex Concord]

The problem with 3rd parties is that not enough "Americans" have the stones to vote their conscience.

How many McCain voters did so because they believed a 3rd party vote would have been a wasted vote?

How did that work out for you?

3rd parties did not have enough votes on either side to impact the outcome of the election so, in hindsight, the chance to "send a message", and possibly a big one, was probably lost.

Consider this. Which of the following do you think would be more likely to push the Republicans back toward the Constitution:

A: The LP getting 8% of the popular vote, "costing" McCain the election

B: A bunch of libertarians and "true conservatives" pissing and moaning about how most Republicans now behave and vote like Democrats, but continuing to pull the big "R" lever in the booth?

If you think B is the answer, you might want to ponder the nature of politicians a bit longer.

The only significant difference between the two big parties is over which part of our lives they want control and which special interests are favored.

I didn't coin the phrase, but I couldn't agree more that they are "two wings of of a great bird of prey".

Until the "pragmatists" among us awake, neither party will change significantly, nor will the direction in which this country is headed.

People (including politicians) don't change their behavior if they are continually rewarded for it.

What I can't understand is why so many voters don't change their behavior after being repeatedly punished. It's almost as if Republicans suffer from battered wife syndrome. He'll change. He won't do me wrong the next time, if I just take him back and make him promise to treat me right.

 

[hornadylnl]

I think some also conveniently also forget that McCain was chosen in the primaries because they thought he was the only one that could win. Many people swallowed their principles and voted for him in the primaries. The fact that many dems voted in the primary for him didn't help either.

Voting for the rino because he is the lesser of two evils would be about like a parent giving their child rewards for the grades they get. Give them the same reward for a D- as you would an A+ and see how hard they strive for an A. Why should they, the reward is the same. At least a D- isn't an F. The repub party is giving us a D- effort but are getting the same reward as if they would have given us an A effort. Your vote.

 

[CarmelHP]

I think some also conveniently also forget that McCain was chosen in the primaries because they thought he was the only one that could win. Many people swallowed their principles and voted for him in the primaries. The fact that many dems voted in the primary for him didn't help either.

Voting for the rino because he is the lesser of two evils would be about like a parent giving their child rewards for the grades they get. Give them the same reward for a D- as you would an A+ and see how hard they strive for an A. Why should they, the reward is the same. At least a D- isn't an F. The repub party is giving us a D- effort but are getting the same reward as if they would have given us an A effort. Your vote.

And how again was voting for Bob Barr a big leap for freedom? The guy has a record, and from what most of you big L types say you want, Barr doesn't fill the role much more than McCain. So, how exactly is that a principled vote or much of an alternative? In other words, how is voting for LINOs working out for you?

 

[Lex Concord]

And how again was voting for Bob Barr a big leap for freedom? The guy has a record, and from what most of you big L types say you want, Barr doesn't fill the role much more than McCain. So, how exactly is that a principled vote or much of an alternative? In other words, how is voting for LINOs working out for you?

No, Barr sucks...didn't vote for him. I'm a little 'l'.